Bolton appears to have been a loophole in the Vacancies Act - not the AG.
As the article notes, the new act gives the law teeth - voiding any actions outside scope.
The AG is a senior officer, so no, Whitaker can't take over Sessions'/Rosenstein's duties without being confirmed by the Senate, or even take over transferred duties.https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/22/17153338/john-bolton-national-securi...

It looks like a bunch of lawyers arguments to me. In the end the court will have to decide if someone sues. It seems the basic argument is that if Sessions was fired his replacement must be someone who was at least previously confirmed by the senate. But if he resigned his interim replacement can be anyone. If this argument holds up in court first one must show he was fired and did not resign.

No, this looks to be pretty hardcore law specifically legislated from the looks of it - a handful of positions require Senate confirmation, even if a prior holdover in a top administration position. Whitaker doesn't fit. Even Kavanaugh would have trouble creating a loophole justification.

just struck me that may also be a healthier way to go as regards the mood of the country because that moves everything away from the political cauldron of Congress to the judicial system?

So then if biggies get indicted we get more of a national scenario along the lines of the OJ trial instead of Bill Clinton impeachment trial? Both were quite popular big infotainment shews, as I recall.

"We cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason. Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation ... For the president to install Mr. Whitaker as our chief law enforcement officer is to betray the entire structure of our charter document."

Maddow reported last night that hundreds of peaceful protest rallies to protect the Mueller investigation are on tap for late this afternoon, all over the country, organized by Indivisible, MoveOn and perhaps others. These groups are treating the red line as now having been crossed with the Whitaker move.

From Greg Sargent's WaPo column today, "Cornered and raging, Trump begins his coverup. Here's how Democrats can respond." One option he discussed:

........

Subpoena Mueller’s findings. Under the regulations governing the special counsel, he is to provide a “confidential” report explaining his conclusions to the person overseeing the probe — who would have been Rosenstein but now will be Whitaker. It is Whitaker who is then supposed to provide a report to the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees, which gives him a great deal of discretion to decide how much to put in that report.

Whitaker could theoretically report little to nothing, in effect covering up what Mueller learned. “Democrats could subpoena Mueller’s findings,” Chafetz tells me. “But expect the White House to put up a fight in response to the subpoena.” Other legal experts think that if the White House defied such a subpoena, the courts would rule against them, meaning Congress would get Mueller’s finding

As Chafetz has written elsewhere, one key thing Democrats must think hard about is how to use such proceedings to inform the public about what’s happening, both for political and substantive reasons.

........

Sargent concludes:

It seems obvious that once Democrats take over the House, we are headed for a major escalation in hostilities. Trump is already testing to see what he can get away with, so it’s good that leading Democrats just responded with a letter calling on Republicans to hold emergency hearings on Trump’s move, arguing that the appointment of Whitaker is precipitating a “constitutional crisis.” Republicans will shrug, but this suggests Democrats recognize the gravity of the moment and are organizing to respond accordingly.

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Since stepping into his new role on Wednesday, Whitaker has faced questions — principally from Democrats — about whether he should recuse from the Russia investigation, given that he has written opinion pieces in the past about the investigation, and is a friend and political ally of a witness.

On Thursday, two people close to Whitaker said he has no intention of taking himself off the Russia case.

Ethics officials at the Justice Department are likely to review his past work to see if he has any financial or personal conflicts. In many instances, that office does not require a Justice Department official to recuse, but suggests a course of action. In the past, senior Justice Department officials tend to follow such advice, but they are rarely required to do so, according to officials familiar with the process.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Officials there have said Whitaker will follow the regular procedure in handling any ethics issues that arise.

The two people close to Whitaker also said they strongly believe he would not approve any request from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to subpoena the president. Mueller and Trump’s lawyers have negotiated for months about a possible interview, with no agreement in sight.

When the Senate convenes next week, @ChrisCoons and I will ask for unanimous consent to bring S.2644, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, to a vote on the Senate floor. After the firing of The AG, it is more important than ever to protect the Special Counsel.

But:I must add this perspective: some of my in-laws in Northern California could care less, I just found out they are on the road, fleeing this fire, and only the local news cares so far, too much news, at least NBC is now covering it:

Matthew Whitaker explaining WHY Sessions HAD to Recuse himself because of the “appearance of impropriety.” He is ALSO explaining why HE must RECUSE HIMSELF in the Russia investigation in his new role as AG. pic.twitter.com/V572igpg3Q

We knew Whitaker was a critic of Russia inquiry but turns out to be more: in July 2017 he interviewed with WH Counsel McGahn to be admin's chief defender against it. Trump gave job to Ty Cobb instead, but has now installed Whitaker as Mueller's supervisor. https://t.co/Jyv2q41GqV

Yes this is the situation right now but the feeling I got from this is that he might be thrown under the bus soon if he gets to be too much trouble. As Blake says and Maggie agrees:This is what WH staff do when they don’t want false denials/conspiracy theories to blow back on them.

The subtext here is the Wall Street bailouts and foreclosure wave. All Democratic leaders essentially supported it. This is why there’s grumbling, but no alternatives. The Democrats have really just started their internal debate over big money. https://t.co/8XKgqvJYn2

Brookings Institution fellow Elaine Kamarck on Friday compared President Trump's rhetoric on immigration to "the boy who cried wolf. I think that the president at this point with immigration is like the boy who cried wolf," Kamarck, who also directs the Center for Effective Public Management, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons on "What America's Thinking."

What Blair had first conceived of as an elaborate joke was beginning to reveal something darker. “No matter how racist, how bigoted, how offensive, how obviously fake we get, people keep coming back,” Blair once wrote, on his own personal Facebook page. “Where is the edge? Is there ever a point where people realize they’re being fed garbage and decide to return to reality?”....“Nothing on this page is real,” read one of the 14 disclaimers on Blair’s site, and yet in the America of 2018 his stories had become real, amassing an audience of as many 6 million visitors each month who thought his posts were factual.